Be Careful Who You Sleep With

It's swell to be reminded that we still have some influence in the big world out there. Superpower we may no longer be, thanks to the dick, the rummie, the chimp and all those others, but it's only fair that the election outcome should thoroughly roil and stain some shoulders in the UK too. Maybe the superpower concept needs to be scrapped, and if that be the outcome of this most amazingly dismal of American ventures wouldn't it be interesting to have a future judgement of the smirking not-even-a-chimp be to credit him for taking us down? How would his current 31% or so of deluded supporters feel about that?

The original article here spoke of "Sympathetic Labour Pains" and "Tony Blair's Post-Election Panic Attack." I call it Anglo-American Blood Poisoning.

They say the fountain in London's Trafalgar Square turned the color of
blood on Armistice Day last weekend, as Britons in the hundreds of
thousands trudged out in the November gloom to commemorate the end of the
First World War, and lament the dead in all the wars thereafter.

But the turning of the water was no miracle, no divine judgment on the
leader whose fateful partnership with George W. Bush is producing - week
after week, month after month, year after year - fresh cause for future
mourning. The color came from the thousands of fake poppies tossed into the
fountain in what The Observer called "a spontaneous act of remembrance": an
offering of the ubiquitous charity emblems worn by most of the population
in the week leading up to the memorials.

In any case, Tony Blair never saw the vision of blood in the Square; he
was in Hyde Park, with the Queen and other worthies, conducting formal
ceremonies where no free action or unscripted word from the public was
allowed to intrude. These offices of the dead were a fitting end to a week
which saw Blair and his ministers launch a massive new fearmongering
campaign, promising a "generation" of terror, war and tyrannical security
measures in a "long and deep struggle" against his own nation's Muslim
minority.

In a season already notable for the official demonization of British
Muslims (see "Long Black Veil," Truthout.org, October 23), the new assault
twisted the screws even tighter. It is obvious that Blair has been badly
stung by his American partner's rejection at the polls, which makes his own
fanatical devotion to Bush and the bloodsoaked folly in Iraq look even more
absurd. His frenzied waving of the terror flag is, in part, Blair's
panicked response to the political diminishment of the Washington regime
that has been a mainstay of his own power.

That power is now at its lowest ebb. His party is politically bankrupt,
with its worst poll numbers in more than 20 years - largely due to the
cynicism, distrust and revulsion bred by the Iraq War. Blair himself is now
under criminal investigation for allegedly selling peerages in exchange for
campaign donations and huge private loans to Labour which party leaders
then hid from auditors. He is to be questioned "under caution" - i.e., as a
target of the probe - by police in the coming weeks.

And yet another corruption investigation is now cranking up, the Times
reports, centering on Blair's personal intervention in the sale of a $50
million military air traffic control system to debt-wracked Tanzania -
which has a grand total of eight military airplanes. Despite objections
from the World Bank that Tanzania could have obtained a civilian system for
a tenth of that price, Blair overruled his own cabinet, which had also
rejected the deal, and forced it through on behalf of BAE Systems, the UK
defense contractor and Carlyle Group partner. Another beneficiary was one
of the UK's most powerful banks, Barclays, which loaned Tanzania the money
for the deal. The African nation repaid this debt with foreign aid money
that Blair's government had given it - ostensibly to support public
education - while BAE allegedly slipped big-time baksheesh to Tanzanian
officials to clinch the deal. In the end, Blair essentially served as a
bagman for a bribe-greased transfer of public money to Barclays and BAE.

-clip-

And so, just two days after the US elections, the latest operation
designed to terrorize the British public began with an unprecedented speech
by MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller. The UK's spymaster rarely speaks
in public, and almost never divulges details of intelligence operations;
yet there was the redoubtable double-barreled spook at the podium, throwing
out scaremongering numbers like Senator Joe McCarthy in days of yore,
waving around his ever-changing enumerations of "known Communists in the
State Department."

In a speech pre-leaked for maximum effect, Manningham-Buller doled out
artfully vague, impossible-to-verify "intelligence" of "more than 30 active
terrorist plots" in the works among more than "200 terrorist networks" in
Britain with at least "1,800 active terrorists" (all Muslims, natch)
threatening the nation with "mass casualty suicide attacks" which could use
"chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and" - wait for
it - "even nuclear technology."

Manningham-Buller was somewhat less forthcoming on why MI5 was allowing
1,800 known and identified active terrorists to swan around the country
building nuclear bombs, but in a follow-up to her speech, the nation's top
policeman, Sir Ian Blair (no relation to the PM), gave a clue, citing the
"inflexibility" of the nation's justice system, which apparently gives
accused terrorists too much leeway to gum up the works with all that legal
rights jazz. Sir Ian obviously prefers the kind of flexibility that led his
officers to kill a Brazilian man strolling through a London subway station
last year because he "looked" like some kind of Muslim darky about to blow
up a train.

-clip-

The well-cooked, carefully packaged elixir of fear has intoxicated
America and Britain for five years now. Last Tuesday, the American people
began to shake off their stupor, at least for the moment. But in the Mother
Country - where national elections are still three, perhaps four years away
- the old hootch seems as potent as ever, blurring the vision of dissidents
and government officials alike.

But on one point, of course, Porter is right on the money. There is a
death cult threatening Britain from within, fomenting terrorism and Islamic
extremism with its irrational philosophy, and led by sinister figures who,
in Blair's own stirring words last week, "want to entice young people into
something wicked and violent but utterly futile." But the locus of this
dangerous cult - which has facilitated the killing of hundreds of thousands
of innocent people - is not to be found in Britain's multifarious Muslim
community.

No, it was there in plain sight on Armistice Day and Remembrance
Sunday, dressed in a suit and tie, surrounded by royalty, singing hymns and
laying wreaths. Meanwhile, on that same weekend, four more British soldiers
- and almost 300 civilians - were slaughtered in the wicked, violent and
utterly futile act of state terror perpetrated by the Bush-Blair death cult
in Iraq.

Like I Said - But She Has a Megaphone!

I suspect many of you were not so blinded by the sparklers, confetti, and pinatas at those parties last week as to miss this Ivins like I did. But if you attend to her as I try to I also know you will happily encounter her again. She has a way of saying these things. Like, say, "bipartisanship sounds like a bad idea on its face." Didn't I say something like that just recently? Okay, it was not original with me either.

But I'm sure glad to have the feeling Molly and I have our uniforms coordinated. I'm looking forward to pre-season, though I bet it is going to be awfully short. I'd heard the season didn't start until January, but now I gather we have some major pre-season games in the next few weeks.

You'll make practice, right?

Brazenly rephrasing Molly: Declare victory and hitch up our shorts.

The sheer pleasure of getting lessons in etiquette from Karl Rove and the right-wing media passeth all understanding. Ever since 1994, the Republican Party has gone after Democrats with the frenzy of a foaming mad dog. There was the impeachment of Bill Clinton, not to mention the trashing of both Clinton and his wife -- accused of everything from selling drugs to murder -- all orchestrated by that paragon of manners, Tom DeLay.

Media Matters collected some gems of fairness. For instance, Monica Crowley with MSNBC, in the wake of John Kerry's botched program, astutely observed "how lucky we are that he was not elected president. ... The Republicans remain the grown-ups, the responsible ones on national security."

How many dead Americans has this grown-up war resulted in?

And how darling of Fox's Juan Williams, upon learning polls show the people favor Democrats on taxes, to say, "To me, that's crazy."

And how many times did Chris Matthews use the Republican talking points about Nancy Pelosi? Extremist, uncooperative, incapable, unwilling to work with the president.

So after 12 years of tolerating lying, cheating and corruption, the press is prepared to lecture Democrats on how to behave with bipartisan manners.

Given Bush's record with the truth, this bipartisanship sounds like a bad idea on its face. Go back to the first year of the administration, when Bush double-crossed Ted Kennedy in the No Child Left Behind Act. Think about it: You've said at the outset of your administration that you need cooperation to get anything done. Then you double-cross one of the senior senators of the other party when your re-education and labor agenda is dependent on him?

These people are not only dishonest -- they're not even smart. Not that I recommend nailing them at every turn, but I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do it to Democrats. If what Republicans have been practicing is bipartisanship, West Texas just flooded.

O.K., here's what the D's have going for them. New kids. Easy, popular first moves -- for example, increasing the minimum wage. Republicans so inept that it's painful. You want to look at some really, really basic legislation, try fixing the Medicare prescription drug bill. Or the bankruptcy bill. Or new dollar and trade policies.

Then we get to the real meat of this election. There are all manner of shuffle steps and politically shrewd thing for the D's to do. But now is not the time to be clever. The Democrats won this election because we are involved in a disastrous war. We know how to do this: Declare victory, and go home.

I noticed when Republicans are forced to talk about how to end this, they tend to announce that it's all hopeless: They have no ideas at all. Thanks, guys. Of all the options, I would say splitting Iraq into three states is least advisable. First, it puts us in the position of screwing the Kurds once again. Second, Turkey has serious objections to a Kurdistan. Third, Turkey is not a militia. Fourth, it gives Iran and Saudi Arabia a pawn apiece. And there'd be an unimaginable amount of future hassle.

Do I have any good ideas? Yes, but it's not a solution. We need to start the Middle East peace process again. Because it's the right thing to do. Because it's what Bush should have done to begin with. Because we have to start somewhere.

Empathizing vs. Politicizing

I'm letting others do the talking tonight, especially as I'm including generous selections of their work.

First up is Larry Johnson, offering excellent empathetic insights that we should have been hearing more of since "we" invaded Iraq and started being fed astonished news that we were less and less welcomed as liberators:

One critical dilemma we confront in Iraq is the burden of our status as the Superpower. All people in the region--Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, and Persians--assume that we have a secret plan that we are pursuing unilaterally. The majority of these folks cannot accept that the sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is a consequence of U.S. incompetence. They assume that the rising sectarian violence is something we want because we are a Superpower. By virtue of our status as a Superpower it is inconceivable that we would allow such violence unless it suited our "hidden" purposes.

The fact that Baghdad still suffers from chronic shortages of electricity, polluted water, broken sewers, and incompetent police is viewed by many in the region as prima facie evidence that we are deliberately and purposefully dismantling every vestige of what was the most secular Arab state in the Middle East. How could it be otherwise? We are a Superpower and a superpower, like any super hero, can do anything it wants.

The picture gets more complicated when viewed thru the sectarian lens of the various groups.

The Iraqi Sunnis by and large believe we are working in concert with the Shia to destroy the Sunni people. The notion that the Shia are the majority of the population is irrelevant. As the Sunni know, the Shia are incapable of governing or organizing without the support and direction of the Superpower.

The Shia keep waiting for the other shoe to drop because they know, in their heart of hearts, that we do not want them to control Iraq. They know we have designated their Iranian benefactors as part of the Axis of Evil and they read and hear news reports that the United States, perhaps with Israel acting as proxy, is going to attack Iran. Remember, we are the Superpower. Nothing happens, good or bad, without us pulling the strings behind the scenes.

-clip-

The following must be our short to middle term objectives:

We must publicly declare we have no intention to occupy Iraq and should renounce any claim to maintain permanent bases in Iraq with the following exceptions:

We will maintain one base in Baghdad, which will serve as the principle location for training a genuinely integrated Iraqi military. We must try to form a force that is not organized by geographic or sectarian loyalties. We must commit to support that force in its operations to make clear that it is not going to favor one religious faction over another. We may also want to consider having one base within each of the major ethnic regions of Iraq. However, our ultimate objective to disengage militaryily must be made clear to all sides.

We must restore public services in Baghdad to pre-war levels. Electricity must be available to all of Baghdad's residents 24-7. They must have clean water and functioning sewage systems. We must use whatever resources are required to accomplish these tasks. If we do so we can begin to counter the widespread belief that we are actually trying to impoverish the people of Iraq.

We must transfer the power now exercised in Iraq by the U.S. Ambassador and U.S. troops to a recognized international authority. The United States cannot and should not be the face of power in Iraq. If we are then we will also bear the blame for allowing the sectarian strife to escalate and for permitting social and sanitary infrastructure to collapse.We must pursue public diplomacy with both Syria and Iran. Saber rattling has gotten us nowhere. We are not in a position to destroy or occupy either of those countries. A crazy fantasy is not a substitute for pragmatic policy.

-clip-

And then there is Mr. Greenwald, author of "How Would a Patriot Act" (highly recommended), noting how the embattled, embittered, and increasingly irrelevant are desperately flailing about with what might be called anti-empathy (although in truth it is just their best effort at supporting the terrorism-fear they have been exploiting):

One theme that has emerged among a very specific strain of embittered Bush followers -- exemplified by the likes of Marty Peretz, John Hinderaker, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds -- is that Al Qaeda and America's other enemies, such as Iran, are celebrating the results of the midterm elections because Democrats are their allies.

To make this claim, they cite a series of playground taunts from Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and various Iranian political officials mocking President Bush because his party was rejected by Americans in the election and because he lost Donald Rumsfeld. Taking these taunts with the utmost seriousness, these Bush followers claim this to be proof that Democrats are the allies of the Terrorists and/or demand that Democrats take immediate action in response in order to prove that this is not the case.

Ann Althouse asks: "What will the Democrats do to push back against that?" Marty Peretz echoes her "thought":

And Friday, according to an article by John Hemming from Reuters, Khameini that the defeat of the Republicans on Tuesday was a victory for Iran. Let's hope that the Democrats don't make it so.

One way to prevent this from seeming to be objectively true would be to have Nancy Pelosi end her ugly and personal vendetta against Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligene (sic) Committee. But, let's face it, it will take more than that. Much more.

John Hinderaker has a whole post with one declaration after the next like these:

I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. . . . And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates. . . .

Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we've noticed so far.

-clip-

There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting. This was the rhetoric upon which they and their Leader increasingly relied as the inevitability of their loss became clearer, and the more they spew this sort of trash, the better it will be for the country, because with it, they so transparently reveal what they really are.

I note all of this not in order to respond to these "arguments" but instead to note the response to it all from Ed Morrissey, who said this:

It's the kind of stupid rant that makes radical Islamists and their sympathizers swoon with delight, but is filled with hyperbole and crude attempts at psychological warfare and propaganda. They try to play into the mood of their enemies, and they demonstrate their ability to monitor news feeds in their attempts to provoke Americans across the political spectrum. That's one reason why it's a mistake to allow them to succeed, but there are more as well.

Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. . . . Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.

The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts.

-clip-

The idea that Al Qaeda and Iran were rooting for the Democrats to win in the midterm elections -- or that they want Jane Harman to be blocked from ascending to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee because they prefer some more liberal Democratic Congressman -- isn't just malevolent. It's outright stupid and childish -- just as those endless claims as part of the 2004 election that Al Qaeda was rooting for John Kerry were. Digby explained exactly why that is so yesterday in the course of speculating as to why Rumsfeld was not fired before the election:

It is also probable that Bush, Cheney and Rove all believed that any sign they were listening to the opposition would be perceived as weakness by the terrorists which I think is one of their fundamental mistakes in running the war on terror. Like most immature bullies they attach much too much importance to silly schoolyard taunts . . . .

How much do you think Junior hates [hearing Al Qaeda taunts that he fired Rumsfeld and lost the election]? I would guess it bothers him quite a bit, judging from his rhetoric over the past five years.

I suspect they think the world sees things through the same schoolboy lens as they do and truly believed that if their voters saw al Qaeda dissing the Prez before the election they would recoil from their weakened leader in disgust.

Perhaps they are right. And I suspect they couldn't take the idea of Democrats gloating (we are pretty much the same as al Qaeda in their minds) either.

In many respects, we have had a foreign policy over the last five years based on the mentality of the most irrational, insecure 8-year-old playground bully -- hence, the obsession with Al Qaeda's chest-beating proclamations and the increasing identity between the Bush movement and Al Qaeda in terms of both rhetoric and thought process. But I think Morrissey's sober response to his comrades illustrates something important.

-clip-